foreverknightfandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:How to make a vampire
I don't care if you call this page "How to bring across a vampire" or "How to make a vampire", but it was never intended to be a redirect to "Bring across"! And I can't seem to undo your change. The "Bring across" page is simply supposed to define the term, and as such it primarily goes under the category Term. Of course, it then gets linked to a lot on other pages so people can check the meaning; but it's basically just a definition. "How to make a vampire" is supposed to be rather more, and rightly would go under the category Vampires. I just never got around to fleshing it out. Nor (mea culpa) did I explain what was going to be going on. The idea is that there is a section (Canon) with subheads for each episode that introduces something significant to our understanding of how vampires are made. So "Near Death" gives us the death visions, and "The Fix" gives us the RNA. Other connected info comes from "Blind Faith", which has the notion of vampires fixated on the first blood they drink. "Dead of Night" suggests that too much blood can be drained. But there's evidence elsewhere too: conflicting evidence on whether vampires need to drink their master's blood to come across ("Bad Blood" says no, "I Will Repay" is equivocal; "Near Death" and "Dead of Night" both suggest blood drinking is part of the ritual.) So, a small summary in each subsection. Then "Fan Rationalizations" is (potentially) a section for people to do their own sums, and provide their own interpretation and synthesis of the canon. Each contributor presumably would say something slightly different, and could sign their User Name to it. Anyway, that was my idea. Quite different from "Bring across". :Okay, since you didn't get a chance to flesh it out, I took the initiative and edited. :As for Fan Rationalizations, no. No signatures on article pages. Ever. It defeats the purpose of a wiki article that can be edited by anyone. Signatures denote ownership and belong only on talk or discussion pages or in the forums. The main article pages aren't meant to be places where discussions could take place. I apologize if this comes off as overly harsh. :I think to avoid this problem in the future, we should both endeavor to put ideas on the talk page of what we envision rather than assume we'll get back to the pages eventually. I've already started doing this. As for what to do about this now, I'll reread what you've written about your path with this article and see what I can do to fix where I thought this was going given the lack of any other instruction. I'll let y ou know when I've gotten it sorted out (or you'll see it in the recent changes list).--Kodia 23:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC) ::That's okay. I'm not wedded to the thought of people signing their names. I do think that we should be able to do a list of various rationalizations that have been proffered by fans in attempts to patch some sense into the FK universe on this point. With or without links to actual fan fiction (and without signatures). — Greer Watson 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC) Okay, well crafted references to rationalizations are absolutely okay, but they would look more like something you would read in an article, not a forum. For example, a forum would say "I think that he's dead because of X. -- Sherry". But an article would read something more like "Fans argued for some time over the character's life status, with most insisting he was alive. An alternate view, proposed by Sherry Fangirl in her fictional story titled 'Sherry Thinks He's Dead'link attempted to piece together evidence of his insanity resulting in his ultimate demise." See the difference? One is clearly a conversation. The other is a rationalization that fits into the theme of a wiki and still manages to reference both the person responsible for the idea and their story. Now, if we want the "I think he's dead" type of information we can easily set up a forums area on this wiki that allows that kind of discussion. We can also actively encourage that kind of discussion on the talk pages. Or we can simply take advantage of FORKNI-L to provide us the space and the userbase that already exists for this kind of discussion. (Or a combination of those three, for that matter.) I have to admit, seeing things like the later description of rationalization really gets me all warm and happy inside knowing we can have a coherent article *and* still pimp out what I think is some of the finest fanfic on the planet.--Kodia 11:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)